Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040001212026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/36/2026 Chow Chenam Namchoom Son of Late Chow Champilit Namchoom, resident of Momong Village, PO and PS Chongkham, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Chief Secretary and 4 Ors Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar2:The Secretary Transport Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The General Manager Age: 0 Occupation : State Transport Service Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Papu Nallah Naharlagun. 4:The Station Superintendent Age: 0 Occupation : State Transport Service Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Krishna Bdr Chetry Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Kashi Prasad Chetry Page No.# 2/3 C/o the Station Superintendent Sate Transport Service Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Bolu Ram Das, Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 03-06-2026 03.06.2026 Heard Mr. B.R. Das, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. This application is filed for correction/amended of the IA(C) No. 275(AP)/2025 wherein some typographical mistake occurred in paragraph- 10, 14 and 21 of the said application. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the applicant that, inadvertently, there was mentioned of 72, 90 and 95 days of delay in paragraph Nos.10, 14 and 21 of the aforesaid IA(C) No. 275(AP)/2025, instead of 164 days of delay. Therefore, he prays for correction of the same. Ms P. Sangeeta, learned Government Advocate has no objection to Page No.# 3/3 the aforesaid prayer for correction. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that prayer for correction in paragraph Nos.10, 14 and 21 of the IA(C) No. 275(AP)/2025 can be allowed for ends of justice and accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed. Accordingly, the delay mentioned as 72, 90 and 95 days in the paragraph Nos. 10, 14 and 21 of the aforesaid IA(C) No. 275(AP)/2025 shall be read as 164 days of delay. In view of the above, the interlocutory application is disposed of. It is seen that the appeal is not yet admitted due to pendency of delay condonation application. In view of this, let the matter be listed after 3(three) weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry in orders column. JUDGE Comparing Assistant